Heat and fluid flow in additive manufacturing – Part II: Powder bed fusion of stainless steel, and titanium, nickel and aluminum base alloys

T. Mukherjee, H. L. Wei, A. De, T. DebRoy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The most important metallurgical variables that affect the structure and properties of components produced by powder bed fusion (PBF) are examined using a model, proposed and validated in part-I of this paper. These variables include the temperature and velocity fields, build shape and size, cooling rates, solidification parameters, dendrite arm spacing, hardness, distortion and lack of fusion defects for four common alloys used in additive manufacturing (AM), stainless steel 316 (SS 316), Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718 and AlSi10Mg. The process parameters examined include laser power, scanning speed, powder layer thickness, packing efficiency and hatch spacing. Among the four alloys, the largest molten pool of AlSi10Mg ensures good fusional bonding among layers and hatches but exhibits high solidification shrinkage. Therefore, AlSi10Mg is the most susceptible to distortion among the four alloys. SS 316 exhibits the opposite trend because of its smallest molten pool among the four alloys. For a particular alloy, lack of fusion and distortion can be minimized by careful selection of hatch spacing and scanning speed. For the dendritic growth of SS 316 and AlSi10Mg, refinement of the solidification microstructure through close spacing of the dendrite arms can be achieved using thinner layers and faster scanning. Asymmetry in liquid pool geometry because of the difference in the thermal properties of powder bed and solidified build can be minimized by reducing the scanning speed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)369-380
Number of pages12
JournalComputational Materials Science
Volume150
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2018

Fingerprint

3D printers
Stainless Steel
Titanium
Heat Flow
Nickel
Aluminum
Powder
heat transmission
Powders
fluid flow
Fluid Flow
hatches
beds
Flow of fluids
stainless steels
Fusion
Hatches
Fusion reactions
Stainless steel
manufacturing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Computer Science(all)
  • Chemistry(all)
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Physics and Astronomy(all)
  • Computational Mathematics

Cite this

@article{4b80b799c609444e857635896e489938,
title = "Heat and fluid flow in additive manufacturing – Part II: Powder bed fusion of stainless steel, and titanium, nickel and aluminum base alloys",
abstract = "The most important metallurgical variables that affect the structure and properties of components produced by powder bed fusion (PBF) are examined using a model, proposed and validated in part-I of this paper. These variables include the temperature and velocity fields, build shape and size, cooling rates, solidification parameters, dendrite arm spacing, hardness, distortion and lack of fusion defects for four common alloys used in additive manufacturing (AM), stainless steel 316 (SS 316), Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718 and AlSi10Mg. The process parameters examined include laser power, scanning speed, powder layer thickness, packing efficiency and hatch spacing. Among the four alloys, the largest molten pool of AlSi10Mg ensures good fusional bonding among layers and hatches but exhibits high solidification shrinkage. Therefore, AlSi10Mg is the most susceptible to distortion among the four alloys. SS 316 exhibits the opposite trend because of its smallest molten pool among the four alloys. For a particular alloy, lack of fusion and distortion can be minimized by careful selection of hatch spacing and scanning speed. For the dendritic growth of SS 316 and AlSi10Mg, refinement of the solidification microstructure through close spacing of the dendrite arms can be achieved using thinner layers and faster scanning. Asymmetry in liquid pool geometry because of the difference in the thermal properties of powder bed and solidified build can be minimized by reducing the scanning speed.",
author = "T. Mukherjee and Wei, {H. L.} and A. De and T. DebRoy",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "150",
pages = "369--380",
journal = "Computational Materials Science",
issn = "0927-0256",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Heat and fluid flow in additive manufacturing – Part II : Powder bed fusion of stainless steel, and titanium, nickel and aluminum base alloys. / Mukherjee, T.; Wei, H. L.; De, A.; DebRoy, T.

In: Computational Materials Science, Vol. 150, 07.2018, p. 369-380.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heat and fluid flow in additive manufacturing – Part II

T2 - Powder bed fusion of stainless steel, and titanium, nickel and aluminum base alloys

AU - Mukherjee, T.

AU - Wei, H. L.

AU - De, A.

AU - DebRoy, T.

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - The most important metallurgical variables that affect the structure and properties of components produced by powder bed fusion (PBF) are examined using a model, proposed and validated in part-I of this paper. These variables include the temperature and velocity fields, build shape and size, cooling rates, solidification parameters, dendrite arm spacing, hardness, distortion and lack of fusion defects for four common alloys used in additive manufacturing (AM), stainless steel 316 (SS 316), Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718 and AlSi10Mg. The process parameters examined include laser power, scanning speed, powder layer thickness, packing efficiency and hatch spacing. Among the four alloys, the largest molten pool of AlSi10Mg ensures good fusional bonding among layers and hatches but exhibits high solidification shrinkage. Therefore, AlSi10Mg is the most susceptible to distortion among the four alloys. SS 316 exhibits the opposite trend because of its smallest molten pool among the four alloys. For a particular alloy, lack of fusion and distortion can be minimized by careful selection of hatch spacing and scanning speed. For the dendritic growth of SS 316 and AlSi10Mg, refinement of the solidification microstructure through close spacing of the dendrite arms can be achieved using thinner layers and faster scanning. Asymmetry in liquid pool geometry because of the difference in the thermal properties of powder bed and solidified build can be minimized by reducing the scanning speed.

AB - The most important metallurgical variables that affect the structure and properties of components produced by powder bed fusion (PBF) are examined using a model, proposed and validated in part-I of this paper. These variables include the temperature and velocity fields, build shape and size, cooling rates, solidification parameters, dendrite arm spacing, hardness, distortion and lack of fusion defects for four common alloys used in additive manufacturing (AM), stainless steel 316 (SS 316), Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718 and AlSi10Mg. The process parameters examined include laser power, scanning speed, powder layer thickness, packing efficiency and hatch spacing. Among the four alloys, the largest molten pool of AlSi10Mg ensures good fusional bonding among layers and hatches but exhibits high solidification shrinkage. Therefore, AlSi10Mg is the most susceptible to distortion among the four alloys. SS 316 exhibits the opposite trend because of its smallest molten pool among the four alloys. For a particular alloy, lack of fusion and distortion can be minimized by careful selection of hatch spacing and scanning speed. For the dendritic growth of SS 316 and AlSi10Mg, refinement of the solidification microstructure through close spacing of the dendrite arms can be achieved using thinner layers and faster scanning. Asymmetry in liquid pool geometry because of the difference in the thermal properties of powder bed and solidified build can be minimized by reducing the scanning speed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045627477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045627477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.027

DO - 10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.027

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045627477

VL - 150

SP - 369

EP - 380

JO - Computational Materials Science

JF - Computational Materials Science

SN - 0927-0256

ER -